valkyrieza: (Firefly - Isn't that special)
[personal profile] valkyrieza
Looks like ANC did not get the 2/3 majority it was aiming for. It's nice to know that perhaps the largely ignorant and uneducated majority of people in this country has not completely bought into Zuma's populist approach. I could be wrong of course, and it is possibly because the breakaway party, COPE was simply voted for by those people who felt more allegiance to its leaders, rather then the ones remaining at the ANC. I'm hoping it is the former, because that would mean people care about education and their country's future and thus vote based on they feel is best for them as people. I'm really feeling optimistic today.

In other news, Apple coughs up for copyright infringement. I'm not the biggest fan of Apple corporation so I'm glad their image is displayed correctly and not through pink-coloured glasses.

Apple has been ordered to pay $19 million to Opti Inc., a technology company based up the road in Palo Alto, for patent infringement.
The verdict came out of Patent Lawsuit Valley (also known as the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in Marshall) late Thursday, where a jury found that Apple had "willfully" infringed on Opti's patent for "Predictive snooping."
The patent—its full name is "Predictive snooping of cache memory for master-initiated accesses"—describes a method to more efficiently transfer data among the CPU, memory, and "other devices." The patent was issued to Opti in June of 2002, and the company filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Apple in January of 2007 (which we briefly mentioned in a Friday Apple links post that week).
Apple had acknowledged that it used similar technology, but argued unsuccessfully that the patent should be declared invalid due to prior art and obviousness. Much to Apple's dismay, the jury didn't buy it. They ended up rejecting Apple's claims and found the company guilty of willful patent infringement, awarding Opti $19,009,728 as a "reasonable royalty for infringement." We sincerely hope some lawyer uses that extra $8 to buy a nice coffee or something.
With close close to $30 billion in the bank, $19 million isn't likely to hurt Apple very much in the overall picture. However, cases like this remind us of why Apple seems to be a popular target for patent infringement suits. It's a large, well-loved company that has tons of cash. If it's not careful with those patent searches when developing new technology, the company could continue to find itself shelling out—or being forced to change its products.

Anonymous( )Anonymous This account has disabled anonymous posting.
OpenID( )OpenID You can comment on this post while signed in with an account from many other sites, once you have confirmed your email address. Sign in using OpenID.
Account name:
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.


Notice: This account is set to log the IP addresses of everyone who comments.
Links will be displayed as unclickable URLs to help prevent spam.


valkyrieza: (Default)

May 2010

30 31     

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 23rd, 2017 07:55 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios